Cowtown jay you have seems to miss much of the general principle of my discussion.
The interest here in Pike is relative to their “ownership” in Spongetech and that number is beased in it’s entirety on a filing last made representing February 2009 and some poor math by Mingy. So let’s break down the facts.
As of April 30, 2009 the O/S was 722 Million according to the 10 filed. This was unaudited for the record and was over 500 Million shy of the February numbers with a “reported” buyback. Note it was a reported by never verified by an independent auditor. At the time, SPNG had 34,000 in cash available.
Shortly thereafter SPNG bought Dicon. With 34,000 how do you think they purchased Dicon? Since RME seems to be paying all other bills, what makes you think they did not pay this debt and based on all historical references, RME pays after receiving shares at a 40% discount to market.
We also know that massive shares, in the tens of millions, were issued to third party promoters in June. Where did these shares come from? Furth denies giving up his so who paid off the promoters with stock? In June ONLY the company and RME had the shares so they clearly were either issuing shares of RME was offering up theirs to the open market. Any shareholder who purchased in that timeframe now hold those shares in THEIR accounts.
Advertisments and deals. GFGU sued Spongtech and RME because the investment was paid by RME and not Spongetech. Do you really think they made that payment free of newly issued shares? MSG is suing Spongtech and RME because it was RME that put a stop payment on the check. Do you think RME was making this payment free of shares in return? How many other advertising deals were made by RME and thus share distribution?
NONE of you shareholders ever factor in the fact that you all own stock. Is all your stock bogus? If you went to your broker would they make claim that your account is book entry fails to deliver – for all of you? Notice that in mingy’s calculations he assumes massive buy back on shares while at the same time SPNG didn’t even have the capital to pay their debts. How then do they buy back shares when they can’t pay their bills? Mangy also denies any and all counts for shareholder shares. Where are all these shares in the calculations?
Any claims that PIKE owns 60% is basic PIPE dreams. If they owned 60% they could pull their certs and raise a massive squeeze as they would have to have massive FTD’s since it would be impossible for all you shareholders to be getting the fails while they get the deliveries. As for RME, they are a fund not a bank. It would be illegal for them to be the “bank” for Spongtech and holding all their cash. It would be an illegal co-mingling of capital.
As for the NY Post, there is a lot more to this story that you do not know. Suffice it to say, you are wrong in your assertions and all I can say is; don’t believe all you read as there is a difference between what is said and what took place. Physical evidence does not lie.
Have you ever considered running a simply program to track expenses and profit and try to figure out where this “profit” is being held? The company theoretically made $11 Million last year (theoretical because no auditor signed off on those numbers) but where did the 411 Million go if RME is paying all their bills and if RME is paying their bills, do you not think RME investors want something for it? If you don’t think they want anything in return can I send you my bills and have you pay them for me too? After all you seem to think Moscowitz and Metter are sacrificing their money just for you the shareholder.
Bottom Line: PIKE does not own 60% and any discussion of it is pure BS. there is not a single ounce of evidence to support the share buy back and in fact just the opposite. I suggest you start by reading the filings and the total number of shares the company authorized in a buy back. It is less than mingy has calculated because he double books numbers. Mingy also fails to address the additional Share Issuances that took place.
it is also interesting that none of the analysis provided by longs accounts for any of the SEC allegations made which included but not limited to the SALE of unregistered securities by Metter and Moscowitz which could be in reference to sales made by RME and the inaccuracy of public records which could be relative to share structure and sales; unless you can think of something else they may have misrepresented that the SEC would have found.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
